Marett -v- Marett [2014] JRC 087A (02 April 2014)

Marett -v- Marett [2014] JRC 087A (02 April 2014)

Jonathan's counterclaim is struck out as an abuse of process because all claims (except for occupation of the property) were compromised by the heads of agreement and consent order, and no grounds were advanced to set aside that settlement. Jonathan's defence to possession fails as there is no enforceable promise or estoppel; the alleged promise was compromised by the settlement, and the remaining assertion is not unequivocal. There is an arguable case of undue influence, but not sufficient to defeat summary judgment on possession.

Citation
[2014] JRC 087A
Parties
Plaintiff: Stephen Marett; Defendant: Jonathan Marett
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
02 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Strike Out and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Counterclaim struck out; summary judgment granted for possession; damages to be determined at trial.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Undue Influence, Illegality, Consent Orders, Estoppel, Enforcement of Settlement Agreements
Civil Procedure Contract Law Family Law Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Undue Influence Illegality Consent Orders +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Marett

Plaintiff

Jonathan Marett

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Strike Out and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Jonathan's counterclaim should be struck out as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether Jonathan's counterclaim is tainted by illegality and unenforceable
  3. 3 Whether the heads of agreement and subsequent consent order preclude Jonathan's claims

Ratio Decidendi

Jonathan's counterclaim is struck out as an abuse of process because all claims (except for occupation of the property) were compromised by the heads of agreement and consent order, and no grounds were advanced to set aside that settlement. Jonathan's defence to possession fails as there is no enforceable promise or estoppel; the alleged promise was compromised by the settlement, and the remaining assertion is not unequivocal. There is an arguable case of undue influence, but not sufficient to defeat summary judgment on possession.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim struck out; summary judgment granted for possession; damages to be determined at trial.

Orders

  • Jonathan's counterclaim is struck out except for damages for occupation, which is also dismissed.
  • Summary judgment granted for Stephen for possession of the property.